Dennis Kucinich’s War Powers Act vote to end US involvement in the war in Libya, known as House Concurrent Resolution 51, will get a vote in the House tomorrow. In a letter to supporters, Kucinich laid out his reasons for calling up the vote:

This vote shouldn’t be necessary, of course. The United States Constitution requires congressional authorization to go to war. The administration has disregarded the Constitution. Instead, they have spun the conflict as a minor intervention or as part of NATO, but the fact remains that we’re bombing another country and we pay, by far, the largest percentage of NATO’s military bills. This is a war that we’re leading – and it’s a war that violates our Constitution and the War Powers Act. It’s time we end this war.

Congress must find its voice and the American people must call upon Congress to take the Administration off the war path.

Prior to this, Congress has been fairly unwilling to even talk about the war in Libya, let alone allow for a War Powers resolution. Even when President Obama asked for a resolution of support from Congress for the mission in Libya, the House was slow to respond. However, now they will allow this privileged resolution to come to the floor. And last week, House Republican aides were genuinely unsure of whether or not it would pass.

Of course, any concurrent resolution would also have to pass the Senate, which is fairly unlikely. But this is a direct challenge to the war powers of the executive, and represents one of the few instances where Congress has asserted their own role in this debate. This is less about Libya than about the Constitutional responsibility of the legislative branch. If it did manage to pass, the President would have to abide by the wishes of Congress, or spark a Constitutional crisis.

Last week, by a massive vote of 416-5, the House approved an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would bar the use of any US ground troops in Libya. Since then, Western armed men have been seen on the front lines near Misurata, but the speculation is that they are British. Intelligence personnel from Britain and the United States are assumed to be on the ground in Libya.

32 Responses
to “Tomorrow: House Concurrent Resolution 51 Vote to End US War in Libya”

I wonder if it tactically it’d be better for the res to use just the War Powers Resolution, which requires the President to get Congressional authorization in 60 days and, because he didn’t, requires him to end U.S involvement within 30 (now 20) days. The constitutional question is murkier, and gives opponents a smokescreen to hide behind.

This vote shouldn’t be necessary, of course. The United States Constitution requires congressional authorization to go to war. The administration has disregarded the Constitution.

So where are the Articles of Impeachment? This is not a CHOICE, it is a DUTY. Every Congressperson took an oathe to defend the Constitution, so when it is ignored, it is your DUTY to use the power in the Constitution to hold those ignoring accountable. And in this case the tool is impeachment.

WTF??

Seriously, the US can impeach a President for a blow job, but not when one ignores and utterly trashes the actual constitution??? BOTH George W Bush AND Obama deserved impeachment.

The fact that BOTH parties refused to do their constitutional duty tells you all you need to know about the two parties.

Come on Dennis. Why THIS bullshit resolution and not Articles of Impeachment as your oathe of office REQUIRES you to do??

You know what’s funny? You know what sums up ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS in a nutshell?

MOST folks reading this thread think you and I are the ones being unrealistic. Holding folks up to the rule of law and their oathes is being unrealistic.

Somewhere along the line folks stopped believing in the words (which is ALL any Constitution or law is) and started believing in people. And when you do that, of course you then look at this behaviour or that behaviour and you want to give the person doing those things the benefit of the doubt. Cause s/he’s a person.

Obama means well, it was (in the opinion of many) a worthy mission, so what if you have to fudge the rules a little. Those banksters were just people trying to make a buck, they weren’t real CRIMINALS. That corporation or this corporation isn’t trashing the middle class and environment because they’re assholes, they’re just trying to make a living.

ALL of those little “get out of jail free” sentiments are what ultimately destroys the rule of law.

And when that happens, folks that cling to the actual rule of law are the ones looked at as crazy. Radical. Too “unserious” to even consider worthy.

And that’s where we’re at. In politics. In the economy. In religion. In everything. NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

Well, I hope all those laughing at our quaint little view of the rule of law enjoy living in the brave new world they’ve helped create. I know I don’t.

End the action in Lybia? I never wanted to go in there to begin with but where are the people here who ardently said we had to go to protect human rights and it was the only moral thing to do? A few of us thought then this would be a shit storm. So now no one wants to defend the action?

I won’t go for impeachment but unless we find all the supporters for this fucking “action” I would support the get the fuck out cause.

Why would Kucinich introduce such a resolution just when we’re starting to get all kinetic-ey, an’ shit? Isn’t that supposed to be a good thing? I mean, “Days, not weeks.” (Wait.) “Weeks, no months.” (Wait.) “No boots on the ground…” (Wait.) And wait and wait and… /s

I never wanted to go in there to begin with but where are the people here who ardently said we had to go to protect human rights and it was the only moral thing to do?

I remember it well. I had several impassioned “discussions” with some who blogged here at the time (conversations were cordial) insisting that we “had to” support the “Libyan peoples’ revolution,” and that it emphatically had NOTHING to do with BigOil, yadda yadda, and that Team USA would be “out” in a twinkle of an eye.

I kept saying: Clap louder for Tinkerbell!

This had BUPKISS to do with supporting or not supporting a “peoples’ revolution.” It was a decision made by BigOIL. Period. The end.

And P.S.: don’t hold your breath waiting for your “oil dividend” cuz you, as a “small person” in the USA (who’s *paying for* this quaqmire) ain’t seeing one thin dime of any “oil dividend.” That’s ALL going to the fat cats at the top.

Typical: the “small people” get to pay through the nose to kill people somewhere else… but any kind of potential “gain” is “enjoyed” only by the upper 1%… but hey! there’s not “enough money” for you stooges to collect what you paid into Soc Sec and Medicare. The end.

Those in Congress have “a bully pulpit” to speak to citizens in a manner very few people have. So, whenever someone like Congressman Kucinich or Senator Sanders speaks out on an issue on behalf of citizens they represent, I say, more power to them. Even if the rest of Congress continues to play games, another perspective is provided on the issue. When you have two parties acting in sync, someone needs to break out and speak up. We as citizens need to question and really look into whether our current system of “representation” is working for us as a whole when statements reflecting a moral conscience are a “minority” opinion.

I left this in another of dday’s posts on Zuma’s failure to negotiate peace in Libya, but I’ll repost.

I’ve no doubt that Libyan’s want freedom from Gadhafi, but that doesn’t mean they want the West moving in. This person/group views the Libyan Transitional Council as traitors/collaborators, and they are not pro-Gadhafi.

There’s a big dust up about westerners being spotted on the ground in an AlJazeera video, but it’s been happening the whole time. I’ve seen them on militaryphotos.net. Take a look at this video from April 22. It’s in arabic, but the images contain the message.

As for Kucinich, I give him credit. He’s elevating this unconstitutional war. And frankly, with so many in my party (GOP) claiming to be against spending… Dennis may think he has the votes for this particular wording?

Furthermore, does he have the ability to get something to the floor for a vote? Any current House parliamentarians here? My guess is that Boehner could stop any vote Kucinich raises… but Boehner may very well be getting an earful from the House freshmen who aren’t fully corrupted yet and still have a sense that Congress should be involved.

I’m interested to see how my Congressman (Chris Murphy, CT-5) votes. I like him, but he’s been a big disappointment on war. All I’ve ever seen him do is tow the party line (which was anti-war under Bush and pro-war under Obama IMO).

But now he’s the frontrunner in the primary for Lieberman’s seat. And he’s got a marginally legit opponent (Susan Bysiewicz) who is happy to highlight Murph’s less-than-strong opposition to war.

And thanks. I figured there’d be a parliamentarian here, but I’m a newbie and wasn’t sure. Regardless, I go on the basis that Reid and Boehner can kill almost anything (on which they frown) before it hits the floor. Look no further than what Rand Paul had to do to discuss the Patriot Act.

And “long-time progressives,” such as Franken are smart. He won’t buck Harry on minor issues, such as war and civil liberties. There’s much greater comity in Tammany Hall when “esteemed colleagues” play patticakes and sing koom-bah-yah.

Sorry… just upset with the resounding silence emanating from the halls of Congress on both Libya and the Patriot Act. And I expect very little from most of them, but I expected more from Franken on both of these issues.